The evidence base for sentencing provisions of the Criminal Justice and Licensing Scotland Act 2010

1. The evidence base for sentencing provisions of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 Dr Sarah Armstrong, Glasgow Universitysarah.armstrong@glasgow.ac.uk *ESRC Research Grant, (RES-000-22-2881) is gratefully acknowledged in supporting some of the work presented today.

2. Relevant provisions Presumption against short prison sentences Community Payback Orders (CPO�s) �Progress Reviews� Sentencing Council**Not part of presentation today

3. The case for reform Heavy use of prison� �to little effect.

4. Like Bulgaria, Slovakia and Moldova, Scotland has a prison population nearer to 10,000 than 5,000; a small proportion of foreign prisoners; and a large average capacity in each of its penal establishments. Like Bulgaria, Slovakia and Moldova, Scotland has a prison population nearer to 10,000 than 5,000; a small proportion of foreign prisoners; and a large average capacity in each of its penal establishments.

7. Why short sentences don�t �work� Both too hard and too easy Don�t provide enough time to deal with a drug problem Do provide enough time to lose housing, family and job Don�t send a message � seen as pointless, vindictive and inevitable

9. What might work? CPO�s: the concept Unifies a number of different orders (but not DTTOs or RLOs) to add coherence and transparency Creates flexibility to adapt sanctions to individual circumstances �Payback� defined as paying back communities for harm done (vs. England and Wales: paying back the offender by shaming him/her)

10. Evidence about community sanctions Nearly all would prefer community to prison except if at intense point of addiction, chaotic living Community sentences felt to be about getting help and giving help; prison is about killing time Hard in the way punishment is meant to be hard People generally want to be doing productive things with their time, and when doing so as part of a sanction tend to feel punishment is legitimate and meaningful (in contrast to prison)

12. Problems with CS How they�re used: The typical �punishment career� features two or three community sanctions at the start, when person is least mature and at early part of a growing drug/alcohol dependency But no panacea: intrusiveness, balancing different requirements to be manageable, determining when draconian or liberal management of order is best, treating a drug problem vs. punishing its harmful consequences.

13. Progress Reviews �problem solving court� model (US) vs. � In the �traditional court� model, sentencer:

14. The problem solving court concept Main example is the drug court, but also domestic violence court, youth court. AKA therapeutic courts Collaborative vs. hierarchical approach Focus on holistic outcomes and bigger picture issues Regular reviews (�check ins�) to support good behaviour, sanction bad behaviour, get to know person (and how best to get results from them) within model of restorative justice (contributing to justice by repairing rather not just punishing harm)within model of restorative justice (contributing to justice by repairing rather not just punishing harm)

15. The evidence on PS courts Drug courts consistently show reduced offending while participating in the court, some evidence of sustained decline in offending (10-year study of participants in Oregon drug court showed 30% fewer arrests than matched control group); Scottish drug court pilots suggested drug use and offending had decreased during participation. Risks and criticisms: too much scrutiny leads to increasing rates of recall (Scottish pilot), reliant on personality and other unpredictable and untrainable qualities of particular judge in charge; courts as social workers and addiction as crime. MultnomahMultnomah

16. What does it mean for a sentence to work? Results: noticeable change in offender, less offending overall Legitimacy: sanction seen by public (which includes offenders, judges, academics) as meaningful and appropriate